sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bombay State, Maurya Empire, Rajpramukh, The Hindu

STATES REORGANIZATION IN : A CENTRIFUGAL OR CENTRIPETAL FORCE FOR THE FUTURE? WILLIAM H. wAKE University of Southern California

To many Americans, all disturbances in India are caused by her complex of religions, the abyssmally low living standards of her people, or the communists-or some combination of the three. In view of the publicity given these causes of intra-national strife, such conclusions. are under­ standable-and almost inevitable. But another factor has been much more disruptive in the last decade. It led to creation of a new state in 1953, an extensive reorganization of the states in November 1956, further reorganization in 1960 and may well be the cause of still further realignment of states' boundries and/ or creation of additional states. This factor was language-or rather languages.

-·- Other ?spects of India's culture and political history were inv:olved. Religious cqnf1ict was associated with disturbances in the where Sikh demands for a religious state have led to bloodshed more than once. A strongly divergent culture complex underlaid Assamese separatist move­ ments. The people's awakening sense of economic frustration entered every disturbance, and the communist party actively agitated fears, resentments, frustrations, and regional pride. In fact, every aspect of India's human complex entered the drive for reorganization of state's boundaries. But the chief cause of riots between 1951 and the present has stemmed directly from the complex of regional and local languages. The nation's internal boundaries have been changed drastically in response to this pressure. Will the reorganization have centrifugal or centripetal effects? Either can result since factors favoring both are present. The outcome will depend upon the point of balance achieved. The purposes of this paper are to examine the background of the move and attempt to forecast the likely results. BAcKGROUND oF INDIA's LINGUISTIC CoMPLEXITY A brief examination of present linguistic patterns and their evolution is .first necessary.India's languages may be divided into four primary fami­ lies. Two are of major importance and two are relatively minor. The Indo­ languages derived from Sanscrit, and the Dravidian languages derived from dominate. The former are generally associated with northern, the latter with southern, India. Fringing the north and northeast of the country are the minor Sino-Tibetan languages, and scattered through the hilly areas are the equally minor remnant Austric languages, recognized in the as official or "Specialized " .languages/ the 47 languages

1 1951 Census of India, "Languages," Paper No. l, 1954. While Sanscrit is recognized as a " ... Language Specialized in the Constitution" (Table l, pp. 6 & 7), it has no regional significance and little utilitarian importance, being primarily a language of classicists and the arts. The remaining official languages are , , Punjabi, Marailii, Bengali, Gujarati, Oriy_a, Assamese, and Kashmiri in ilie Indo· Aryan family, plus Dravidian languages Telugu, Tamil, , and . 35 or dialects spoken by 100,000 or more people, and the 720 languages or dialects with less than 100,000 speakers each. Many of the minor languages are verging on complete extinction with but one to a few dozen persons listing them as their "Mother Tongue" in the census returns. However, each still contributes to India's linguistic complexity with multi-lingualism not merely present but widely mandatory. The evolutional details of this complexity are uncertain because of great gaps in knowledge of Paleolithic and Neolithic India and of even much mqre recent periods. The most recent hypothesis concerning the various prehistoric groups indicates six main races with nine sub-types.2 The Eolithic Negritos apparently arrived first via overland routes from the west. All but extinct in India today, they contributed very little to the present linguistic picture since, excepting the Andamanese, the survivors speak ". ; . debased dialects of their more civilized neighbours."3 After the Negritos, several groups of Proto-Australoids speaking a variety of Austric languages and dialects also seem to have come from the west bringing the bases of significant portion of the present patterns. Those were followed by the Mediterranean Dravidian-speaking peoples whose descendants now forh1 a rather solid l?loc in , but who seem to have spread generally over India then. Their languages were apparently quite diverse upon entrance, too, and also became further differentiated with the passage of time. Nordic groups that migrated from their probable hearth area in the Eurasian steppes brought the Aryan languages to India, and western brachvcephalics from the Central Asian mountain regions appear to have spread over most of the subcontinent. The Mongoloid peoples remained concent-rated in the north and northeast where their Sino-Tibetan languages primarily affect border speech patterns. Therefore, of the six major prehistoric racial groups that entered the area, five contributed generously to the linguistic patterns as the several languages and dialects of each were variously blended with pre-existing and following tongues to form still further combinations. Since the Aryan Invasions (c. 2500 to 1000 B.C.) a constant though limited stream of immigrants and a series of invaders have brought numer­ ous languages into the area where many have been lost but others survived more or less modified by contact. Some of the invaders, like , have received much publicity but contributed little that was endur· ing. Others, as the Gm·jaras, are far less well known but have made lasting contibutions. The Guriaras were one of "... a motley array of unrelated tr·ibes and peoples ... ,"who entered India from Central Asia as part of the Hephthalite invasion of the fifth and sixth centuries A.D. After the defeat and retreat of the in 528, the Gurjaras remained and settled permanently in the area now known as , gradually becoming part of community-the Rajputs4-and contributed significantly to India's limmistic kaleidoscope as well as to other aspects of the nation's culture and history.

2 Dr. B. S. Guha, Director of the Anthropological Survey of India, cited by S. K. Chatterji.The History and Cult:ure of the , Vol. 1, pp. 142-169. 3 See S. K. Chatterji, op. cit., p. 147. 4 G. Nye Steiger, A Hist-ory of the Far East, Boston. 36 The Moguls (Moslems) not only achieved considerable fame but also made an especially important contribution to the , with the development of Urdu which evolved as a lingua franca in the camps of the invaders, enabling them to communicate with the Hindu conquered. As such, Urdu combined the Arabic-flavored Persian of the invaders with Hindi and other existing languages and still dominates portions of northern India. Internally the rise and fall of , with attendant movement of and resettlement of families, led to further mixing. This resulted in various tongues being spread over considerable portions of India for varying periods as the "language of the rulers." When the collapsed many individuals and groups remained to form linguistic enclaves and exclaves. A good case in point is the Andhra people whose original home appears to have been the present Telugu area between the lower Krishna and Godavari Rivers. "vVith the downfall of the they embarked on a course of territorial aggrandizement, and, ... overran large tracts of the country formerly ruled over by the Western ()."5 At its peak the emoire extended from the core area on the east coast of the peninsula across the Deccan to include sizable portions of the present , and northward to the Narmada River, lasting some five centuries until the middle of the third century A.D. This expansion and collapse left numer­ ous groups scattered across the peninsula forming-the dominant linguistic groups of villages and tahsils, and even sizeable portions of districts com­ pletely isolated from the nearest Telugu-speaking areas. Finally.-Hindustani evolved as a patois synthesizing elements of Urdu and other languages with Hindi to provide a widely used means of communication. The European languages which have been superimposed over vary­ ing areas do not enter the linguistic states question. So far, two factors have been considered as contributing to India's linguistic complexity. These are the variety of contributors, and time. Three other factors have affected language dispersion. They are land­ forms, vegetation (with its climatic relationships), and traditional trans­ portation media. The hi.2h mountain walls of the north with their pendents down the east and west land boundaries of pre-independence India served as barriers, but neither completely nor uniformly. The arid northwestern mountains have been considerablv less iso­ lating than the rainforest-covered northeastern physiography. Once over the mountains of the vVest and northwest, invaders had the great expanse of the Indus-Gangetic lowland before them and, after gathering strength in the Punjab, moved relatively rapidly across the plains spreading their language patterns over wide areas. Entrance from the northeast was more difficult because the severely eroded hills and the rainforests of merge with the swampy ­ Brahmaputra delta. Similarly the generally arid east-coastal plain permitted easier move- --- 5 C. Collin Davies, An Historical Atlas of the Indian Peninsula, Geoffrey Cumberlege (Oxford University Press, Madras), p. 14. 37 ment than the narrower, more rugged, often interrupted, and rainforest­ covered western coastal plain. The central plateau, with its lateral hill and low mountain chains and frequent forest areas offered a considerable barrier to movement, particu­ larly toward the east where dissection is more pronounced and higher pre­ cipitation produces numerous forests. At the same time it offered many pockets in which limited groups could settle in safety and sufficient isola­ tion to promote marked areal differentiation of languages and dialects. Therefore the major How of migration swept down the Indus-Gangetic lowland, •and curved around the edges of the Central Plateau to follow the coastal plains. Movement onto the plateau was more akin to a slow infiltra­ tion. Relative isolation was the rule rather than the exception here. Even on the open plains the lack of roads, plus the slow rate of movement of pack animals and bullock carts with their limited carrying capacity, and the even slower pace and more limited capacity of hamalis (porters) hampered movement. However, limited means of movement did not completely prevent shifting and Spencer states that, "D espite primitive transport facilities India became surprisingly mobile."6 Nevertheless that mobility was much less than even today's low per capita travel. More important, as Spencer notes further, it did not produce an amalgamation of peoples though racial mixture occurred more than many high caste Hindus care to admit. Nu­ merous ethnic features became widely adopted, but language did not enjoy equal acceptance with other culture items. Instead it became an increasingly irritating point of differentiation and separation. In spite of ·physical mo­ bility, intellectual and emotional isolation created such a strong linguistic provincialism that adjacent villages are still often unable to communicate in a common tongue, and at times, interpreters must be obtained for inter­ preters already employed, even within a single state.7 DEVELOPMENT OF AGITATION FOR LINGUISTIC STATES Agitation for linguistic states did not emerge full-blown overnight, nor did it have a single cause. Demands for organization of the Telugu state of Andhra date from the latter part of the nineteenth century. Other groups, particularly the Marathis and Karmadas, have actively agitated for similar states-formation over a like period. The had taken some steps to satisfy these demands but had never dealt with more than small segments of the problem. At independence some consideration was given to the question when merging princely states and small British states with one another or with large states or . But again efforts were not adequate, though the need was recognized and the boundaries established after partition were considered only temporary by the govern· ment of India.

6 Josevh E. Spencer, Asia, East by South (New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1954), p. 175. 7 This occurred to the writer on a field trip into the Bastar District of , a tribal area, when an Indian friend who volunteered to act as our inter­ preter could not converse with local villagers save through an interpreter because our friend spoke only five or six Indo-Aryan languages and English-while the villagers spoke Austric languages. 38 The bases for these demands are complex but may be summed up in six categories: l) relict nationalism superseding the nationalism of India; 2) the essential, detailed, disunity of India throughout its history; 3) local and regional isolation; 4) development of several quite dynamic litera­ tures; 5) dissatisfaction with boundaries imposed by the British Raj mixed with feelings of generalized resistance to the conqueror who remained apart, and 6) linguistic-based jealousy, suspicion, and discrimination. Through India's long historic and far longer pre-historic occupation by man, many indigenous kingdoms and empires have risen and fallen. Others have come into existence following invasions by groups who became more or less assimilated into the Hindu culture pattern. Their posterity remem­ ber these past glories very vividly. As descendents of the builders of the Andhra kingdom the Telugus felt entitled to a separate area to be known as theirs, felt an active kinship with Telugus living in other states, and wished to be identified with the great empire of the past. Hence their agitation for and dissatisfaction because it did not include nearly half of State and other areas to form Visalandhra, or "Greater Andhra."8 Pride of ancestral origin is so strong that members of families which have been in an area for as much as .five generations almost invariably identify with the place of family origin.They often speak their ancestral tongue in addition to local languages, follow original dietary patterns and modes of dress, and even transplant architectural styles.9 In spite of the movement noted previously, most people. did not leave their birthplace. The predominantly rural sedentary subsistence agricultural economy required little extra-regional trade. Besides having strong emotional ties to their land the peasantry generally was economi­ cally insecure enough that relatively few would dare venture to a strange area as long as their home village could supply them with basic subsistence. Fewer could succeed in brealdng the restrictions of caste and obtain accept­ ance in a strange area, even from those of the caste they claimed. The combination of landforms, climate, and vegetative barriers, plus extremely poor transportation facilities and a subsistence economy created stagnation and isolation from all but adjacent villages and perhaps the nearest market town. Therefore, local isolation was important. At the same time the prev­ alent pattern of many separate kindoms rather than a single political unit was undoubtedly important through history as a cause of regional isolation. The importance of writing and literature as separating elements be­ tween groups is well recognized. India provides a classical illustration of this generalization. Virtually every expression relating to the question of

8. Ironically, at least one authority disputes the generally accepted belief that Telugu was the language of the Andhra Kingdom. In "Origin and Growth of Telugu," The Indicm Express, Andhra St!pplement, Madras, October 8, 1953, p.x, Dr. G. R. Sitapati cites evidence that the Andhras spoke a Sanscrit-derived language. 9 For example, a resident of , in central India, stated firmly that he was from though he also admitted that his family had not lived in that region for over 150 years and had even disposed of all their holdings there save one small farm. This was retained to continue the family tie to the ancestral village. In es­ sence, this was repeated by many Indians with whom the' writer discussed the question of origins, and in other contexts as well. 39 linguistic states included the issue of regional literatures. Each of the major and some of the minor language groups have developed a dynamic litera· ture over the centuries. This has increased the often bitter resistance to adoption of Hindi as the offical language of the nation, particularly in South India, and has also been part of the foundation of many demands for linguistic states. Dissatisfaction with internal boundaries had existed throughout the British period on grounds that they were " ..fortuitous .." with "no basis in Indian history .., and (were) shaped .. 'by the militaty, political or administrative exigencies or conveniences of the moment'."10 Furthermore, "The provincial organization of British India was meant to serve a two­ fold purpose: to uphold the direct authority of the supreme power in areas of vital economic and strategic importance and to fill the political vacuum arising from the destruction or collapse of the former principalities. Of these two, the first was obviously the primary objective, and it required the suppression of the traditional regional and dynastic loyalties. This was sought to be achieved bv erasing old frontiers and by creating new provinces which ignored natural affinities and common economic interests. The administrative organization of these provinces was intended to secure their subordination to the Central Government, which was the agent and instrument of imperial control exer­ cised from . This process inevitably led to the formation of units with no natural affinity."11 Growing nationalism brought the first slight consideration of affinities into the division of in 1905 and its re-division in 1912, with a "policy of balance and counterpoise (beginning) to override purely administrative considerations in making territorial changes, though on such occasions argu­ ments b:1sed on administrative needs and other principles were also put forward."12 But " .. . the shape of the provinces and the principles under­ lying their formation,... continued ... to be very far from satisfactory."18 With independence, a large part of this dissatisfaction was transferred to the new national government because the administrative units of British India were basically unchanged and hasty integration of the Indian States (Map 1) led to linguistic and ethnic mis-alignments. Simple inertia of sentiment opposition to "The Government," seems also to have strength­ ened the feelings of linguistic states advocates. The last item cannot easily be documented, but is felt in the details of numerous arguments. Finally, linguistic-based jealousy, suspicion, and discrimination (both real and imagined) provided strong bases for agitation. These actUally became more virulent after independence and the beginning of the develop­ ment plans than they were before. The reason for this was the previous tendency to criticize the (foreign) British administration as discriminating against India as a whole. With independence, the government ceased to be an "outside oppressor," and represented rule by internal groups. The Telugus of northern now felt more keenly than before that the in control of the state funneled almost all the as-

10 Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms, 1918, para. 39, cited on page 1 -:f The Report of the States Reorganization Commission, 1955. 11 Ibid., p. 2. 12 Ibid., p. 3. 1s Ibid., p. 4 40 INDIA ADMINISTRATIVE

DIVISIONS 1948- 1956

-·- lnhrnotional Boundor7 --State Boundary

B A Y

0 F

BENGAL

A STATE, (Governors State) 8 STATE , ( � Rajpramukh s State l ANDAMAN 'Z, C STATE �·ISLANDS (Centrally Administered) LACCADIVE� :• D STATE � ISLANDS : (Centrally Administered)

OTHE TERRIT R ORY NICOBAR , ISLANDS• .- DISPUTED AREA

°FORMED 1953 COLONIES ond ADJACENT NATIONS bFRENCH COLONIES,CEDED TO INDIA, 1954

Fig. 1

41 sistance (and largess), of the central government into Tamil areas. The Tamils denied this to no effect. Marathis and Gujaratis disagreed similarly in Bombay State while the Marathi·speaking people of Berar complained that the Hindi-speaking leaders of Madhya Pradesh also practiced discrimination, and other linguis­ tic groups showed the same sort of fears and suspicions. The agitation which had increased with the growth of nationalism burst forth with greater vigor at the achievement of independence, and gained a first major cul­ mination with the formation of Andhra on October 1, 1953. PLAN AND PROCESS OF REORGANIZATION The formation of Andhra did not assuage the desires and claims of other linguistic groups, instead it led to increasingly vigorous agitation. This resulted in formation of a Commission in December 1953 to examine the question of states' reorganization, ".. . objectively and dispassionately ... so that the welfare of the people of each constituent unit as well as the nation as a whole is promoted."14 The Commission decided upon three lines of action: 1) to invite inter­ ested individuals and o-roups to submit documented memoranda expres­ sing their desires; 2) to hold nation-wide interviews, and 3) to study census and other statistical data, including economic and financial information. On September 30, 1955, the Commission submitted its four-part report. The heart of the report is in Part Two which discusses the factors bearing on reorganization, and Part Three which contains the reorganization pro· posalsY The items to be considered were broadly inclusive but emphasized language. The Commission's working principles were, first, to preserve and strengthen the unity and security of India; second, to provide linguistic and cultural homogeneity to the states; third, to consider financial, econom­ ic, and administrative factors, and fourth, to promote successful working of the national plan.16 Two major problems faced the Commission. First, to satisfy as many conflicting demands as possible without Balkanizing India. Second, to provide recommendations that would minimize transitional problems. Both were clearly impossible of achievement, yet must be attempted. The con­ sideration that national development planning must inevitably cut across state lines and linguistic affiliations further complicated the situation. As finally submitted the recommendations proposed sixteen states and three territories17 with elimination of the classification of states into cate­ gories of unequal legal status.18 Popular opinion had been very critical of this arrangement, particularly in view of the stated democratic aims of the

14 Ibid., p. . 15 Ibid., p. iv. 1o Ibid., p. 25. 17 The Class A States were to be Andhra, Assam, , Bombay, Hyderabad, , , Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Orissa, Rajasthan, Punjab, , , and . Jammu and were to have Class B status. The recommended Territories were , , and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. 18 As defined in the First Schedule of the Constitution, Part A States were 42 government. Therefore it was felt that the states of the Union should enjoy a uniform status. The institution of Rajpramukh ( appointed as heads of Class B States) was to be abolished (along with privy·purses). The part B States (save Jammu and Kashmir) were to be placed on a par with the Part A States, and most of the Class C States were to be merged with adjacent states. Part C States not merged and existing Part D ter­ ritories were to form centrally administered "Territories." Public reaction to the recommendations varied quite markedly. Tur­ moil immediately arose in Bombay as Gujaratis demostrated for a separate state, fearing discrimination by the more numerous Marathis. Each group wanted Bombay City for its . The Central Government proposed making it into a separate Territory, which caused both to riot. Parallel with these disturbances, and emotionally related, the demonstrated for a religious state, "Sikhistan, " to be formed of the Pepsu area. They have continued to riot and demonstrate periodically into 1962 with widely publicized fasts and inflamatory speeches by their leaders to spur them on. At the same time the Nagas of Assam proposed to withdraw com­ pletely from India and establish an independent nation. Their claims were based on an almost totally different culture pattern from that of the agri­ culturalist Hindu Indians.19 comprised of the larger provinces of British India and were administered by a governor appointed by the president with a chief minister appointed by the governor from the Council of Ministers as his main advisor. These states had a degree of autonomy rather comparable to that of the states in the United States. Part B States were formed of the larger Princely States with adjacent small Princely States amalga­ mated to them, and of groups of small Princely States. These had considerably less autonomy than Class A States and were administered by a Rajpramukh - the former (or Nizam in the case of Hyderabad) or the leading ruler of the group of princes in the case of amalgamated states - as recognized by the President. The Rajpramukh enjoyed powers similar to those of a governor of a Part A State as the executive head of the state. But powers of the state were curtailed. With the ex­ ception of Delhi, which in effect has status similar to vVashington, D.C., the Part C States consisted of small states in which development was unusually retarded and the population was predominantly tribal. These were administered directly from Delhi by the President through a Chief Commissioner or a Lie11tenant-Governor, or by the Government of a neighboring state. However, l?rovisions were made for a High Court and Legistlative Council to be established at the discretion of Parliament. These states had very little autonomy though more than the Part D Territories which were administered by the President through a Chief Commissioner or ap­ pointed authority with direct regulative as well as administrative authority, and no provisions established for either a High Court or . 19 These disturbances, the most violent and prolonged of all, actually began some six years ago. They reached a climax in October 1956, and were ended only by a major military effort which brought peace in August, 1957. At this time a convention of some 1500 delegates from all but a few dissident tribes expressed acceptance of union with India but proposed a separate administrative unit. Radmanabhan, P. K., "India's Rebel Head-Hunters Drop Independence Plea," Los Angeles Times, Sep­ tember 8, 1957, Part 1, p. A. At the "Naga People's Convention" in July 1960, formation of a separate state was promised and a Draft Constitution presented on February 11, 1961. On August 21, 1962, Prime Minister Nehru introduced two bills to form the State of Nagaland from the present Part B tribal area of Kohima, l\llolwltchung, and Tuensang Districts in Assam and to amend the to eliminate references to this tribal area. No information has been received concerning passage of the bills. 43 Communist agitation played a significant part in all these distur­ bances but amounted primarily to expressions of opportunism as agitators took advantage of a situation to disrupt the process of reorganization and to discredit the Congress Party for political ends. Despite the presence of these non-linguistic causes of disturbances, language was the primary causes of the demonstrations and riots of the period. After numerous proposals and counter-proposals, peaceful demon­ strations and bloody riots, India's Parliament ratified a Reorganization Act embodying most of the Commission's proposals which took effect on November I, I956, (Map 2). India then comprised I3 Part A States, one Part B State, and five Part C Territories.20 Each of the states, save Bombay and the Punjab, had a single dominant lanuage. Relatively few in number, most of the exceptions to the Commission's proposals were of minor importance. Three, however, were of considerable significance as thev radically m"dified the disposition of Hyderabad, Mvsore, Andhra, and Bombay States. The state of Hyderabad was disintegrated, the Telugu-speaking portions being merged with Andhra State which was then renamed . The remainder of the state was joined with the state of . Bombay continued temporarily as a bi-lingual state enlarged by amal­ gamation of- the eight Marathi·speaking districts of Madhya Pradesh which the Commission had recommended be formed into the State of Vidarbha. On May I, I960, it was divided on linguistic lines to form the States of with Bombay City as its capital (a point of violent contention between the Mahrattas and Gujaratis) and with its capital at (Map 2).21 Other, less important changes include separation of the Laccadive, Minicoy, and Amindivi Islands from Madras State to form Part C Ter­ ritories under direct control of Delhi. Similarly, was set aside from the Punjab, and was also separated from Assam to become Class C Territories. Only the Jammu and Kashmir retained Clas5 B status. To facilitate handling of inter-state questions the States and Ter­ ritories were grouped into five zones.22 Representation in Parliament con­ tinued on the original constitutional bases though numbers were modified.

2o The Class A States are Andhra Pradesh, Assam; Bihar, Bombay, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Mysore (it was decided to retain this name rather than use the proposed name of Karnataka for reasons the writer has not been able to ascertain), Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and \Vest Bengal. Jammu and Kashmir constitute the only Part B States. Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Trip­ ura, and the Laccadive, Minicoy, and Amindivi Islands form the five Part C Terri­ tories. 21 Bombay Reorganization Bill, March 8, 1960. Under the Bill, financial and Parliamentary representations were established for the two states and a separate High Court of Gujarat authorized though its location was not specified. 22 The Northern Zone consists of The Punjab, Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir, Delhi, and Himachal Pradesh; the Cenral Zone is comprised of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh; the Eastern Zone includes Bihar, West Bengal, Orissa, Assam, Manipur, and Tripura; the \Vestern Zone consists of Bombay and Mysore, and the Southern Zone consists of Andhra Pradesh, Madras, and Kerala. 44 INDIA ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISIONS AFTER NOVEMBERI,J956

-·-International Boundary --State Boundary MILES 1go , o 100 290 ayo 400

8 A Y

0 F

8EN6AL

A STATE > fAN DAMAN �ISLANDS 'Z:, B STATE

LACCADIVE� ;. C STATE ISLANDS l

NICOB AR .. ISLANDS'� ° Formed 1960

b Prop..,edNogo Stott COLONIES and ADJACENT NATIONS • Portuguese Colon itS• Occuplad by Indio 1982

63

Fig. 2

45 Six of the states2;j were assigned High Courts. Those of the former Part B States, except Jammu and Kashmir, were abolished along with the High Courts of the absorbed states. Transition period expenditures by the Governors or Rajpramukhs were specifically provided for. Apportionment of states' assets and liabilities was made on the basis of the areas transferred, and assets and liabilities of the union were apportioned on the same basis. Financial established under the State Financial Corporations Act, 195 1, were continued in existing states, and payments made by the new states to existing states on the basis of paid-up capital. Inter-state agree­ ments were continued with appropriate adjustments to meet the territorial changes. The Indian Administrative Service and the continued to provide cadres in each state of the union. Finally, the Act embodied a number of "Legal and Miscellaneous Provisions," such as territorial extent of laws, power to adapt laws, provisions as to certain pend­ ing proceedings, and so forth.

EvALUATION oF THE REoRGANIZATION It is still too early for complete evaluation of the reorganization. How­ ever, certain factors may be considered as bases for a preliminary estimate of the results. Examination of them indicates that both centrifugal and centripetal forces are potentially present. Economic benefits should accrue to the nation from the reorganization. Operational savings can be derived from the decreased number of states and elimination of privy-purses. Meanwhile much greater long-term benefits to the economy should accrue from rationalization of states' boundaries and elimination of small, previously subsidized units. The debit side includes the costs of continuing translations while the costs of education will also be directly increased by the teaching of regional languages in addition to Hindi. Continued use of regional lan­ guages also poses expensive barriers to business communication. Finally, re· gardless of linguistic sentiment or lack of rational border-demarcation, economic patterns and relationships were established with regard to ex· isting states' boundaries. Changing these boundaries has required corol­ lary economic realignments; it seems likely, however, that these unfavor­ able results will have considerably less weight than the long-term economic advantages of the changes. There is also some question concerning the effects on cities which have lost their state capital function. Opinion is divided rather markedly on this, though it is probable that the growing urbanization and industriali­ zation of India will more than compensate for this loss. Compensatory re­ medial actions of the central government such as establishment of large branch offices in Nagpur, former captial of Madhya Pradesh have proven to be effective means of countering the inevitable slump that resulted from the exodus of hundreds of state employees with their families and servants. The emotional aspect of linguistic-boundary placement is of such great and active interest to the people of India that it could over-rule the

23 Bombay, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Kerala, Mysore, and Rajasthan. As noted above, Gujarat and Maharashtra States each were assigned High Courts upon parti­ tion of Bombay State in May 1960, making a total of seven High Courts. 46 objectively more important question of economic viability and cause the effort to fail. Although there seems to have been broad acceptance of the Act, and its subsequent amendment, there were demonstrations and riots against it in several areas. Other less virulent expressions of dissatisfaction were also noted, and many questions were asl\ed concerning the generally unchanged Uttar Pradesh and Bihar borders. On the whole, violent dissatisfaction seems to have ceased. The changes appear to be enjoying , though often grudging, acceptance. However, violence may still recur at any time as the result of unfuHilled desires for separation or u:qification, sparked by economic pressures or other frustrations, or by some sort of incident.24 Dynamic development programs in such "hot spot" areas can do much to prevent such disturb­ ances. Politically the reorganization of the nation on the basis of lang1:1ages might well seem to be a deliberate Balkanization of India with nothing but centrifugal effects to be expected. Establishing seventeen states based upon almost as many different languages will inevitably tend to prolong the life and even stimulate the vitality of these languages. Without entering the corttroversy over the desirability of this fact it must be recognized that multi-lingualism has proven as disruptive of unity through India's history as elsewhere. Further, it is obviously contrary to the aims of the central government which are to establish Hindi as the single official language.

CoNCLUSION Paradoxically the move may well ultimately promote linguistic unifi­ cation and national unity. The boundaries generally have sound, logical bases. As the reorganization is accepted, the issue of differing langtrages will cease to be a point of active contention. Furthermore, a people that feels that its government recognizes individual and sub-group aspirations will co-operate more readily with that government. In this respect, at least, China's aggression against India has bene­ ficial aspects as it has strengthened national consciousness over provincial narrowness ·and thereby diminished the acute emotionalism associated with linguistic differences. The direct effects will almost certainly be too shoit-lived to bring true linguistic unification. Their impacts will be of longer duration, however, and will undoubtedly help to promote durable, as well as short-term, national unity. Therefore, on both logical and emotional bases the reorganization of the states of India will probably produce centripetal results in the long run. This will help to preserve and strengthen the unity of the nation and pro­ mote the success of the national plans by providing linguistic and cultural homogeneity to the states with adequate consideration of financial, eco­ nomic, and administrative factors.

24 The late 1957 Dravidian agitation against the Brahmans, led by E. V. Ramaswamy Naicker in Madras State, is an example of such disturbances. Although the campaign has been couched in religious terms it largely centers around racial difFerences and their linguistic expressions since the Dravidians dominate southern India while the Brahman caste primarily represents the of the north who developed the caste system. The disturbances continued into 1962 with rioting in Madras on February 17. 47